Todd Phenneger decided to speak these words:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Ben Howell wrote:
>
>> hmmm... how do you figure? The UrQ and the 4kq use the sameplatform, but
>> the UrQ is not weighted down by the extra doors, window motors, a larger
>> "trunk" lid..etc.......Now granted, the UrQ has the larger fuel tank and
>> proably has heavier struts in the front (the rears are the same as an UrQ),
>> but a couple of hundred pounds?!?! Come on! If ANYTHING the UrQ is lighter.
>
> Actually the body of the Coupe weighs much more. I am not sure
>exactly why but it seems the coupe just weighs more. 4kq weighs 2,800.
>UR-Q weighs over 3,000 and only about 50 - 100 of that is for the Addition
>of Turbo and Slightly heavier struts. Maybe fenders add some weight. I
>bet the 85' UR-Q with the Carbo Fiber?? REar Trunk Lid may be much closer
>to the 4kq turbo weigh. I bet that saved quite a bit of weight right
>there. not a Clue how much though
Well, now that i am an "official" UrQ owner, i think that i can chime in
here. I honestly dont know how the body of the coupe could weigh more
than that of the 4kq...Yeah, they hvae fender flairs, but seriosly, how
much extra metal is that really, and is it enough to make up for and even
surpass those of the extra doors, window regulators and bits that the 4kq
has? As heavy as the coupe rear lid is, the 4kq trunk lid isnt any
lighter, so that is a moot point also. I think that most of the
difference comes from: 1. the entire turbo system, which includes ALOT of
things that are different, more hoses, turbo, intercooler, oil cooler,
and other things. 2. The suspension itself from what i have looked at is
actually different. I do have the old style suspension with the
different rear suspension and the different types of front and rear sway
bars, but the control arms are most definitely beefier as well as the
subframes. The strut housings in the front are most definitely bigger,
and so are the wheels, and brakes, which again, add more weight. 10 lbs
here, 15 lbs there, and it adds up VERY quickly.
>
>> How about lower center of gravity? UrQ are about 4 inches shorter than the
>> 4k.
>
> Huh? WHat do you mean shorter. You mean like roofline is lower?
>I spose that does make a difference as does having battery under seat
>insead of in the trunk like on 4ktq. Deleting Sunroof would help alot too
>but I like mine :-)
I dunno, but the UrQ is definitely lower as far as roofline compared to
my 4kq, and most definitely to my friend's 88 90Q. My car sits very high
now because of the deleted AC and because of the tall sidewalls of the
205/55/16 tires that i have on there, (and yes phil, i know that the
springs are different on the non-AC UrQ's, but mine wasnt working anyway,
so i figured, get rid of the weight while i could). Even with the raised
height, it is still MUCH lower than the 90Q with coilovers that is set to
a little lower than stock height... And now that i have lost my power
sunroof, i miss it dearly :o( But i can deal with that as soon as i hit
that throttle., well, a few seconds after i hit that throttle....unless
im already at 4000 RPM, when its only a second....
>
>> ALLL 4ksq have 4:11's BTW. And what about an UrQ with 4:11's?
>
> Uhh, I thought the list consensus was that many later 4kq's had
>3.89's. I believe someone even counted the teeth on theirs to confirm but
>I could be wrong. And I thought all US UR-Q's had 3.89. Isn't the
>gearing in tranny different too. Heck, the UR-Q redlines in 4th at same
>speed 4kq redlines in 5th from some stuff I have read but again, I could
>be wrong on this.
Anyway, on this, i know for a fact that my 4kq has the 4.11 gear
ratios...trust me, when im going 62 and its at 3000 rpm, its irritating
as hell, although the UrQ aint THAT much better. I still cant hit 60 in
2nd, and yes, 4th is just about the same as 5th in the 4kq. Also, just
to throw it out, people always hated the original gearing because of the
supposed large jump from 2nd to 3rd. I personally dont see what the
problem is, 3rd is a WONDERFUL gear, and is just right after coming out
of 2nd, yeah, i rev to 6000-6500 to gt it into the right powerband in
3rd, but so what?
>
>> Again with that weight thing.....Who told you that UrQ's are heavier?
>
> Factory lists CUrb as like 3,000 something in everything I have
>read. Dont know about 85' though.
blah blah, hhe...well, i still like to think that mine is light since it
has no AC, and yes, i removed the condensor, compressor and evaporator,
its all out of there....
>
>> JUst defending my UrQ brother's. :-)
>
> No need to. We would all kill for one. I'm just saying for the
>price, a 4kqt could beat up a UR-Q. Put a 20v in UR-Q and the tides
>change. Even a 20v 4kq couldn't compete I dont think as I think at that
>level the wider track, etc of UR-Q would be a bigger advantage. Put a
>Carbon Fiber Hood and rear Deck on and I bet weight would be equal to
>4kqt. I spose you could say I am not putting down UR-Q, just defending my
>funture 4kqt. Soon mayb 4kqt will be running around so time will tell
>which is faster. L8R
I dunno, as good as the 4kq is, i still cant get over how well the UrQ
handles. It has Konis yes, but it also sits about an inch or so too high
and has stock springs, compared to my 4kq with stiff coilovers. Yeah,
there is less body roll on the 4kq, and it is a bit more stable at the
higher speeds, but through the twisties, the Urq is phenominal. I have
been trying to make it break loose, and while the tires may make a bit of
noise in protest, the car just doesnt give up the love affair with the
road...I try things that would get my coiled over 4kq to kick the tail
out no problem and at just about the same speed, i do the same thing, and
it just keeps going, no fishy behavior at all...i dunon, it has a
COMPLETELy different feel than the 4kq. The 4kq feels sorta like you are
way up front of the car, and it swings around behind you, rotating
somewhere ahead of you and so its kind of an interesting feeling, but i
got used to it. Then i got into the UrQ, it has a COMPLETELY different
feel. The steering is alot more communicative, the brakes are very
different, but grip pretty well, but the real difference was the way it
felt going around a turn. At first it felt like the tail was about to
break loose, but as i got used to it, i realized it wasnt that, just that
the car was rotating around me, or at least very close to me. I felt lke
i was right in the middle of the car and i can feel everythiong that it
does. IT is quite an amazing driving experience.
I suppose im fortunate though, i think this is the 4th UrQ that i hve
driven, and they always have impressed me...
later...
Michael Sheridan Williams
ICQ# 11740998
1983 UrQuattro 170,000 miles, MC'd, koni yellows, borla exhaust, A4 Sport
Wheels w/ SP8000's
1985 4000 S Quattro 192,000+ miles, Koni Yellows/Coilover (2B), strut
brace, Sport 8000 Tires, K&N
1986 Oceanic Blue, 4000CS Quattro--Parting Out(ask if you want anything)
My father's: 1986 4000 CS Quattro--Graphite 161,000 miles
http://members.aol.com/daserde2